Anyone missing on the first day of illness Employer President Rainer Dulger is demanding that he no longer receive any wages in the future. Politically, this is a deliberately controversial issue, but legally it is clearly regulated: According to the Continued Payment of Wages Act, there is a fundamental right to continued payment of wages from the first day of incapacity for work (with the well-known requirement that the employment relationship lasts longer than four weeks). An unpaid first day would therefore not be tenable without a change in the law; Employees could sue for payment.

But the downside is just as clear – and has actually been common knowledge since Corona: Anyone who is sick and still comes does not protect productivity, but endangers it. In research this is called “presenteeism”: people drag themselves to work, are unfocused and may endanger themselves or othersoften prolong your own illness and, if in doubt, infect colleagues.

The point is: “Stricter” does not automatically mean “better.” Financial sanctions can reduce short-term absence, but carry the risk of presenteeism and the displacement of employees with health problems.

Waiting periods in other countries

It is precisely this effect that is the reason why countries with very strict rules are increasingly readjusting or at least discussing adjustments. In Great Britain, for example, there is traditionally a waiting period of up to the fourth day, but at the same time there are debates about lowering this hurdle – also with the argument that early coverage ultimately reduces spirals of illness and costs of infection.

Internationally, a look abroad shows that a waiting day is by no means exotic, but it works in very different systems. Sweden has a type of waiting deduction (“karensavdrag”), which is a flat-rate deduction for the first week of sick pay.

In several EU countries there are waiting times of a few days, often combined with subsequent insurance through employers or social insurance.

Counter example Netherlands

The Netherlands takes a different approach: There, employers must continue to pay a large part of wages for up to two years and are at the same time required to engage in active reintegration and company health management – a system that places a strong focus on prevention, early intervention and return-to-work discussions.

There is also a special aspect for Germany: high sickness rates have long been a problem in some areas of the already particularly well-secured public administration – with noticeable consequences for citizens, companies and the state’s ability to act.

When ministries and authorities lack staff due to illness, frustration, backlogs and political pressure increase. At the same time, the scope for “tougher” rules is precisely there: anyone who wants to stabilize the administration must ensure the ability to work – not just punish absence.

Unattractive jobs become even less attractive

In terms of social policy, a waiting day would be particularly sensitive in low-wage areas. Anyone who lives economically from month to month immediately feels the lack of a daily wage – not as an “incentive”, but as a risk. This can lead to people working while sick, taking medication to keep going, or, in the worst case scenario, experiencing financial hardship.

It would be paradoxical if the attractiveness of regular employment continued to decline in places where there is a shortage of workers and people were more likely to withdraw from the labor market. Living on social benefits is already attractive to far too many people.

At the same time, there is another factor that many employees have been complaining about for a long time – and have been complaining about for years: in economically difficult times, staff are reduced, work is intensified, absences are “supported” by colleagues – and in the end, employees actually lose money. If you want to reduce sick leave, you have to be honest: it’s not just about false incentives, but also about working conditions.

Honest evaluation of working conditions

So what would be a realistic, effective alternative to simple punitive logic?

• First: More consistent prevention and health programs in the company. The OECD points out that programs for exercise, ergonomics, stress reduction and well-being can significantly reduce absenteeism and are economically worthwhile.
• Second: early, low-threshold support instead of overtly signaled distrust – for example quick access to company medical advice, physiotherapy, brief psychological advice, and binding return and relief discussions after long periods of absence.
• Third: smarter organization of work. Many short-term absences arise from exhaustion, lack of sleep and constant stress. Where workload can be controlled, equalization often reduces sickness absence more sustainably than any wage cut.
• Fourth – the Corona lesson that is surprisingly often forgotten: Anyone who works in an office job with infection symptoms does not necessarily have to go to the office. Hybrid working, video meetings, flexible task packages and “shutdown” for one or two days can prevent an entire department from being canceled due to a minor illness. This is not a cozy policy, but rather risk management.

In the end, it comes down to a decision: if you want to reduce sickness rates primarily through financial thumbscrews, you risk infection, mistrust and social imbalances. If you want to reduce it sustainably, you need more modern work organization, prevention, quick help and leadership that sees health as a productivity factor. A waiting day saves money – but it can end up being more expensive in the wrong way.